SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowance u/s 54EC and assessee is in appeal for reinstatement of the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 of the capital asset transferred and deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to Mumbai flat. Over and above, assessee has also challenged the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the act by way of an additional ground of appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowance u/s 54EC and assessee is in appeal for reinstatement of the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 of the capital asset transferred and deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to Mumbai flat. Over and above, assessee has also challenged the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the act by way of an additional ground of appeal

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERVO TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in its correct perspective. It states that any expenditure incurred by an appellant for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and profession and no deduction for allowance shall be made in respect

INTERVO TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in its correct perspective. It states that any expenditure incurred by an appellant for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and profession and no deduction for allowance shall be made in respect

INTERVO TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New M/S. Arora & Bansal, Chartered Delhi. Accountants, 1401, Vikram Vs Tower, Rajendra Place, New . Delhi-110008 (Pan: Aabcr7753B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Vs. Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Intervo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-4, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in its correct perspective. It states that any expenditure incurred by an appellant for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and profession and no deduction for allowance shall be made in respect

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 )(d), there could be no manner of doubt that, before an Assessing Officer proceeds to assess the income in the hands of the agent, he has to pass an order u/s 163. The determination of a question of agency can not be postponed to be taken-up alongwith the assessment, as was the case under 1922 Act. f) Bangalore

LNG SECURITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowed. (b)The assessment revised under Section 147 on 27/04/2011 on the ground that certain income escaped the assessment. The A.O order says "The mistake resulted in under assessment of income by Rs. 9,54,626/-. (c) In the assessment order the ITO has explained the nature of transaction in detail but while framing the assessment order erroneously added loss

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

CIT vs. VISHAL GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. ITA 1782 & 1784/2010 Page 12 of 14 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of Section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under Section 156, that did not per se preclude

CIT vs. VISHAL GUPTA

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 2012:DHC:2916-DB ITA 1782 & 1784/2010 Page 12 of 14 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of Section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under Section 156, that

CIT vs. VISHAL GUPTA

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 2012:DHC:2916-DB ITA 1782 & 1784/2010 Page 12 of 14 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of Section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under Section 156, that

M/S GEO CONNECT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

disallowances, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority and made elaborate submissions justifying no liability to deduct tax at source in case of payments to the above two parties. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on various judgments as under: (i) Skycells Communications Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1) vs. GEO CONNECT LTD,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

disallowances, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority and made elaborate submissions justifying no liability to deduct tax at source in case of payments to the above two parties. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on various judgments as under: (i) Skycells Communications Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEO CONNECT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

disallowances, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority and made elaborate submissions justifying no liability to deduct tax at source in case of payments to the above two parties. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on various judgments as under: (i) Skycells Communications Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

GEO CONVEST LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1),

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

disallowances, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority and made elaborate submissions justifying no liability to deduct tax at source in case of payments to the above two parties. In support of its contention, the assessee relied on various judgments as under: (i) Skycells Communications Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowances which are debatable, and in that perspective when once the quantum appeal is admitted by the Hon’ble High Court or the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue becomes available and therefore, no levy of penalty arises. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ld. PCIT

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income